Prejudice and Enforcement of Workforce Homogeneity as Explanations for Employment Discrimination1

Abstract

We examined the effects of subtle and blatant prejudice and the enforcement of workforce homogeneity on employment discrimination in an experimental simulation. German participants who were advised to maintain a homogeneous (i.e., German) workforce, as hypothesized, selected fewer foreign applicants for a job interview than did participants who did not receive this advice. An interaction qualified this main effect, such that subtly prejudiced participants reacted to the advice to maintain a homogeneous workforce, but blatantly prejudiced and nonprejudiced individuals did not. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Selective incivility: Immigrant groups experience subtle workplace discrimination at different rates.

“…Subtle prejudice toward immigrants and mixed immigrant stereotypes provide the attitudinal and cognitive basis for subtle mistreatments at work. Second, earlier research on employment discrimination has shown that subtle prejudice indeed fosters discrimination against immigrants (Krings & Olivares, 2007;Petersen & Dietz, 2005). Finally, immigrants themselves report feeling discriminated against at work (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Perhoniemi, 2007;Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000).…”

The skill paradox: explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants

“…Whereas Petersen and Dietz (2005) examined the effects of an exclusive HRM strategy, our focus is on the effects of an inclusive hiring strategy that emphasized fit with a diverse clientele (see also Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh andVaslow 2000 andPowell 1999 for discussions of fit between employees and customers). We expected that a manipulation of fit with the clientele would affect whether only qualified local applicants or both qualified local and qualified immigrant applicants benefitted from ingroup bias.…”

“…Despite its promise for reducing favoritism in personnel decisions, HRM scholars have largely ignored the common ingroup identity model. Petersen and Dietz (2005) did not explicitly draw on this model, but they examined the effect of an exclusive identity in form of an HRM strategy that emphasized fit with a homogenous staff on hiring decisions involving German and foreign applicants. When demographic homogeneity was emphasized, participants selected fewer foreign applicants despite equal qualifications.…”

Are Ethical Codes of Conduct Toothless Tigers for Dealing with Employment Discrimination?

“…For example, people scoring high on modern racismthe tendency to suppress negative feelings while still holding negative attitudes against blacks (McConahay, 1986) -responded more strongly to supervisor advice to exclude Blacks than people low on modern racism (Brief et al, 2000). Similarly, Petersen and Dietz (2005) found that German participants high in subtle prejudice toward foreigners selected fewer foreign than German candidates if the supervisor advised them to prefer ingroup over outgroup candidates. Similar results have been found for people high in authoritarianism (Petersen and Dietz, 2000).…”